Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lawson v. Attorney General

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai'i

February 23, 2015

MATHEW LAWSON, Appellant-Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Appellee-Appellee

Editorial Note:

This decision is published in table format in the Pacific and Hawai'i reporter.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT. CIVIL NO. 13-1-1331.

Mathew Lawson Appellant-Appellant Pro se.

Marissa Luning Deputy Solicitor General for Appellee-Appellee.

By: Foley, Presiding J., Fujise and Leonard, JJ.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

In this secondary appeal, Appellant-Appellant pro se Mathew Lawson (Lawson) appeals from the following orders from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit[1] (circuit court):

(1) " Notice of Entry of Final Judgment," filed October 17, 2013;

(2) " Final Judgment," filed October 17, 2013;

(3) " Order Dismissing Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court, Filed May 6, 2013," filed October 17, 2013.

On appeal, Lawson contends the circuit court erred in (1) dismissing his agency appeal for lack of jurisdiction and (2) finding that, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 846E-2(b) (2014 Repl.),[2] he was required to register as a covered offender in the State of Hawai'i (Hawai'i) before he could petition Appellee-Appellee the Attorney General for termination of his registration requirements.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, as well as the relevant statutory and case law, we conclude Lawson's appeal is without merit.

To determine whether a circuit court can exercise jurisdiction over an appeal brought pursuant to HRS § 91-14, we consider whether the following requirements have been met:

first, the proceeding that resulted in the unfavorable agency action must have been a contested case hearing -- i.e., a hearing that was (1) required by law and (2) determined the rights, duties, and privileges of specific parties; second, the agency's action must represent a final decision or order, or a preliminary ruling such that deferral of review would deprive the claimant of adequate relief; third, the claimant must have followed the applicable agency rules and, therefore, have been involved in the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.